Well, I can use virtually all my Windows software from the Windows 98 period...with little tricks...on a 64 bit Windows 10...and I like Linux too. Just saying.

Surely, no dubt. But I was referring to the OS, not to applications. Some Win applications runs also on Mac and Linux.

Added after 1 hour 23 minutes:Some final considerations then I quit this off topic. If an operating system is an ambient in which one works, it will be like your ambient; say, you could have the socks inside the wardrobe (xp) and one went and move off your socks inside the kitchen's closet (vista, 7, 8, 10, no matter in which order, and just this says all). You will loss time in search of; a novice, a beginner, can start from 10 and go on because he has a new PC, but an old boy like me is already set as it is and does carry on old programs, old files, etc. that are "alive" and backupped until the disk fails, not until the OS updates because a new peripheric, high-end screen resolution, etc. of which I don't care; these come out because a new PC is purchased when there are such features. Example: still I use DOS applications in batch mode. I can't see those advertisements and warnings on screen about what I use to do whether I load them: it hurts me, it is a stupid non-sense because I do loss time in search of blocking such stupid prompts coming from an OS made by the same corporation. And the rationale in which such options are stored too, does change from version to version. Therefore: why I should updating the OS whether my disk is still working fine like is it? My Xp is installed on a 15 year old disk running on a 10 year old PC because the installation went fine (the new disk got the place of a storage unity) : maybe my disk is older than a kid's first computer.

My favorite Win programs runs fine on my Linux drive; in few hours I'd set-up my Linux version looking like I used to use Xp because Linux is fully customizable, and my files will stay and growth there, all backupped, until the disk failure (I do not have planned to buy a new computer yet and sorry for too much "my").

I have on my own stuff been cleaning up little things that bug me.Mostly stuff like the names used in scripts to controls orbit & label display.Fixing case and plurality stuff, trying to make things more uniform for scripts.

I have also been poking at the idea of a WxWidgets menu system since it is cross platform.Got started on it when I found a wxwidgets/lua cross over.

Thinking about having a startup lua script simply call wx to make the menus when run, that should help with portability.Same basic idea as the QT interface, but without QT's overhead, and more adaptable.I think much of the functionality could be altered without having to recompile.Though I could easily be wrong.As I have stated before, I am not a real C/C++ programmer, I only play one when troubleshooting.

Since Celestia has come back to life, I try to catch up with the latest developments. To start with an easy part: the tools.As things are not working I'll a check on the included files to see if they have been changed since my last working builds(VS 6.0 or VC 2003). I'm used to do that with the date and time stamp of a particular file as a first step. However what I've noticed is that on the Github repository all files have the same date and time stamp. That's more difficult. So now I'm forced to scroll trough the files with something as the repo-browser. Very annoying.

What I do now is using the good old svn repository and look to the date timestamps of files in the trunk if some files has been changes since my last build.That's easy for the first step and if they have been modified than It's time to take a closer look into the revisions of that file.Unfortunately that doesn't work with the Github repository.

vista home basicintel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2160 @ 1,80GHz 1,79GHz 1Go RAMNVIDIA GeForce 8400 GSdirectX 11celestia 1.6with a general handicap of 80% and it makes much d' efforts for the community and s' expimer, thank you d' to be understanding.

I'm a bit late, because I've only just learned about the movements over the last few months.I pointed out Celestia to a coleague of mine, saying "it's great, but hasn't changed for years. Chris Laurel told me it was dormant".This colleague went and had a look, and came back very enthusiastic, singing Celestia's praises, and saying "James, I've got news for you. There's a 2016 version up! What are you saying, 2011 ?"So I raced back here to see what was up, and lo and behold there's the old posts all back up again. Nice.

So bravo, developers, I wish I could help but I'll have to wait until I retire. Then I'd be all to glad to lend a hand if I can.

john71 wrote:So...it is almost March...what's going on? Any pre-release version for testing? Any potential release date? 2018?

A pre-release version of the test can be done, but the changes it is too small, nothing special test.We need programmers, to improve the program well. Without these major changes, we do not.

If programmers join us, then the work go faster, and maybe we can make a release in late 2017.

Added after 1 minute 8 seconds:HB, file creation date on your PC is displayed at the time when the file came to you on your computer. I never look at these dates, i use the data from GitHub repository.

Added after 53 seconds:symaski62, what is your question? SVN in past, now Git repository.

Added after 1 minute 5 seconds:

JamesC wrote:I wish I could help but I'll have to wait until I retire.

Welcome back! I'll be glad if you will help in Celestia 1.7.0 development.

vista home basicintel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2160 @ 1,80GHz 1,79GHz 1Go RAMNVIDIA GeForce 8400 GSdirectX 11celestia 1.6with a general handicap of 80% and it makes much d' efforts for the community and s' expimer, thank you d' to be understanding.

Maybe a shortcoming of Github to ignore the original file date and time stamps. Any descant program will ask you to keep those. It might be important forany kind of reasons or purposes. If we have to rely on Alexell site without all historical facts and information than problems may cause problems with easy fault finding among other things.So please take care to have the more or less 'official' Celestia repository with the proper date and file stamps. If that is not possible to do, I will advice you to go back to a still good working SVN environment.

http://www.vendian.org/mncharity/dir3/blackbody/Update (2016-Mar-30): For most applications where a human is looking at a screen, and thus judging colors against screen white, a nonstandard but white D58 whitepoint is preferable to a standard but bluish D65 whitepoint.

vista home basicintel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2160 @ 1,80GHz 1,79GHz 1Go RAMNVIDIA GeForce 8400 GSdirectX 11celestia 1.6with a general handicap of 80% and it makes much d' efforts for the community and s' expimer, thank you d' to be understanding.

I really agree with this. In fact I mentioned it recently in the "Whole Earth View" thread (post #12) that I like to use a white point of about 5800K and set my monitor to this color temperature also. This corresponds to the color temperature of the sun that happens to look pretty white from space.

Do I understand correctly that this is a list of star colors normalized on our sun? It'll be great to get realistic star colors according to black body spectrum. And for us humans it is convienient setting the solar spectrum to white (but looking at bbr_color.txt 255 240 233 #fff0e9 is white enoug compared to Celestias current g-star color)

Yes we can see that 5800K (the sun's color temperature) in this list does have white with 255 255 255 counts, at least for the 2 deg standard. The 255 240 233 I think is also correct if your monitor is at 6500K. The trick with this is that the "standard" monitor color temperature is actually a little bit blue. This is why I also set my monitor to 5800K.

vista home basicintel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2160 @ 1,80GHz 1,79GHz 1Go RAMNVIDIA GeForce 8400 GSdirectX 11celestia 1.6with a general handicap of 80% and it makes much d' efforts for the community and s' expimer, thank you d' to be understanding.

HB, we can not go back to SVN. Chris said to do a repository on GitHub, but preserving commit history. I did all that he said. The repository has been imported directly from SF. What are you talking about, I've never used. I look at the changes in the history of commits, there is a date. The dates on the file properties themselves are not needed.